The court weighs the adequacy of reasons for decision, here in light of a tribunal's statutory confidentiality duties and the limited JR 'reasonableness' SOR:
[18] Moreover, we also agree that the adjudicator’s reasons are adequate, particularly in light of the mandatory restraints imposed by the confidential nature of the LCBO’s evidence under ss. 52(3), (13), and 55(1) of FIPPA. They meet the requirements of “justification, transparency and intelligibility” and are justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bore on her decision: Vavilov, at para. 99. When read in light of the record and with due sensitivity to the nature of the IPC’s decision-making regime, the adjudicator’s reasons reveal a rational chain of analysis and meaningfully account for the central issues and concerns raised by the parties: Vavilov, at paras. 103, 127.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
